Everything you've heard about Islam is true

Once again, Islam has been in the news recently. And, as is typically the case, the circumstances surrounding this state of affairs are not positive, and the behavior of the Muslims involved provides yet another public relations nightmare for a socio-religious system already laboring under a mountain of self-inflicted wounds.

First, we have some crazy nut of an imam in New York City who wants to build a triumphalistic "community center" (really, a mosque), just two blocks from Ground Zero. As it turns out, this imam has a history of doing all kinds of typically nutty Islamic things, such as calling for the imposition of shari'a law in the United States. Imam Rauf has managed to do what few others in America ever could, which is to unite over 70% of the American people into opposition against something. While some on the Left and in the Islamic community may think that this whole "Ground Zero Mosque" affair is earning them brownie points from a sympathetic public — the dubious principle of "any publicity is good publicity" seems to be in evidence here — I can assure them that this is not the case.

The second recent story about Islam was the declaration by a Florida pastor named Terry Jones that his church was going to burn a truckload of Qur'ans on the anniversary of 9-11. Personally, I think that this proclamation was more a publicity stunt than anything else, and I would caution conservatives and Christians against hitching their wagons to Jones' horse. Pastor Jones is an apparent associate of Fred Phelps and the Westboro "Baptist" Church out in Kansas — a cult group made up mostly of Phelps' own family, and which is most well-known for picketing military funerals with signs saying things like "God hates US soldiers" and so forth. As an aside, Phelps has also in times past been a close associate of...Albert Gore, Jr., which leads me to suspect that Westboro "Baptist" Church is a front-group used by the Left to try to tarnish the reputation of legitimate Christianity in this country.

At any rate, what is disturbing about this affair is not the burning of the Qur'an — Jones has the right to do whatever he wants to with his own property, which those Qur'ans presumably are. No, what is disturbing is the typical Islamic response, which has ranged from screeching idiots burning Bibles and US flags in front of American embassies (to show us, I guess, that burning things is wrong) to state-sanctioned death threats against Pastor Jones. It seems that there are an awful lot of threats of murder from the Religion of Peace™, does it not? To people paying attention and who can get past the "mean ol' pastor is gonna burn a holy book" superficiality, the message about Islam is voluminous.

Unfortunately, we have a lot of people in this country who aren't paying attention. As a result, there are a lot of myths about Islam that people seem to believe because the news media and Muslim propagandists tell them to believe them. I'd like to take this opportunity to address a few of these myths.

So what do I know about Islam? I've spent the last nine years studying it — its theology, its history, its philosophy. Yes, I've read the Qur'an. I've even picked up a little Arabic along the way, though I'm certainly not fluent. I've read broadly on this subject, from secular, Western, Christian, and Islamic sources themselves. I've digested everything I could get my hands on, from the most technical and academic works that probably only a couple of thousand other people in the world have read, to the most puerile, blatant rah-rah propaganda put out by Muslim publishing houses from all across the Muslim world. I've grounded myself in a knowledge of the social, political, historical, and cultural milieu of the ancient Near East leading all the way up to the rise of Islam and beyond. I've even written a book about the subject, entitled Ten Myths About Islam. I am not saying all this to toot my own horn. I am saying it so as to demonstrate that I do, indeed, have some credibility to discuss this topic that goes beyond "All I needed to know about Islam, I learned on 9-11."

So let us start with the first pervasive myth that we often hear from Muslims, which is that "Islam means peace." This argument represents a common tactic that is used by Muslim apologists in the West, which is to try to frame the discussion in such a way as to mislead, by using Islamic terms that Muslims know Westerners will misconstrue. In this case, it is technically true that the term "Islam" can mean "peace" in Arabic. Islam is derived from the Arabic root form slm, one of the meanings of which in Semitic languages can mean "peace" (the Arabic word salaam is cognate with the Hebrew shalom, for instance). However, as with all languages, the meaning of a word is not determined by its denotation (its "dictionary" definition, so to speak) only, but also by its connotation, the implied meaning that is carried with the word in the minds of its native speakers.

In this case, "Islam" means peace — but in a vastly different sense from how Westerners and Americans think of it. When we hear the term "peace," we think about people getting along together, people being willing to tolerate each others' differences, and so forth. Not for Islam. Islam's view of "peace" has to do with the other connotative meaning of "Islam," which is "submission." Indeed, the term "Muslim" most perfectly means "one who has submitted." For the Muslim, "peace" means the absence of conflict that arises when there are no other belief systems besides Islam. The way Islam brings peace to a land is by terminating the existence, by one means or another, of all other ways of life. Peace exists when everyone has submitted to the Islamic system, either by converting or by accepting a position as third-class citizens in their own countries. And of course, dead men tell no tales.

Hence, when a Muslim tells you that "Islam means peace," he is being truthful, but in a dishonest way. He is counting on you to apply your definition of "peace" to the statement, when the Muslim really has in mind his connotation of the term — which is a far different thing indeed.

This is, obviously, a form of lying, which brings me to my second point, which is the claim often voiced that Muslim and Judeo-Christian ethics and morals are the same, or at least are compatible, allowing them to exist side by side in a pluralistic society. They are not. While the Judeo-Christian tradition values things like honesty, the Islamic does not. Indeed, the example given above of the way Muslims approach the term "peace" is an example of taqiyya, which is a device used by Muslims whereby they are allowed to lie to infidels for the sake of concealing damaging information about Islam, or to protect themselves. Using taqiyya, a Muslim may freely present false or misleading information about Islam to an unbeliever, so long as some sort of advancement of Islam is made. This may mean making false claims, lying about terminology, or breaking an oath or treaty once it becomes advantageous to Muslims to do so (more on this below). Taqiyya is often coupled with kitman, which describes "mental reservation" that Muslims will have when they outwardly engage in un-Islamic behavior so as to fool an infidel. For instance, a Muslim may present himself to Westerners as "moderate" or "assimilated" by eating pork or drinking alcohol, relying upon his "mental reservation" that he really disagrees with what he himself is doing, but has to do it so as to stay "undercover," so to speak, thereby absolving him of the act before Allah.

The Qur'an reports that the breaking of oaths to the infidel was approved by Allah,

"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." (Surah 3:28)"

In context, the text is telling Muslims that they may not take infidels as friends — unless doing so can be used to advance Islam, in which case, Muslims may present themselves as false friends. The use of dishonesty to gain the upper hand against the enemies of Islam is demonstrated clearly in the ahadith (saying attributed to Mohammed that are used to "fill out" the Qur'an). For instance, in one situation, Mohammed absolved a Muslim warrior in advance because he was going to have to use deception to fulfill his vow to kill an enemy of Mohammed,

"According to Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Muhammad b. Ishaq- 'Abd Allah b. Al- Mughith b. Abi Burdah: The Prophet said, "Who will rid me of Ibn al-Ashraf?" Muhammad b. Maslamah, the brother of the Banu 'Abd al-Ashshal said, "I will rid you of him, O Messenger of God. I will kill him." "Do it then," he said, "if you can." Muhammad b. Maslamah went back and remained for three days, neither eating nor drinking more than would keep him alive. The

Messenger of God got to hear of this, so he summoned him and said to him, "Why have you left off food and drink?" "O Messenger of God," he said, "I said something, and I do not know whether or not I can fulfill it." "All that you are obliged to do is try," he replied. "O Messenger of God," he said, "we shall have to tell lies." "Say what you like," he replied, "You are absolved in the matter." (from the History of al-Tabari, Vol 7, p. 95)

"Falsehood is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: 'He is not a false person who settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good." (A. al-Tabbarah, The Spirit of Islam, p. 255)

Keep in mind that "what is good" most definitely, for the faithful Muslim, includes advancing Islam. Likewise, "settling conciliation among people" can be construed as helping to establish the "peace" that Muslims believe they are called to establish on earth.

One very pertinent outflowing of the taqiyya principle is that of the hudna, or treaty of convenience. In such a case, Muslims are allowed to make peace treaties with infidels, and then break them once they have regained their strength and believe themselves to have the upper hand again. The example of a hudna par excellence is found in the Muslim mythology surround Mohammed. Mohammed negotiated a 10-year peace treaty with the Meccans, against whom he had been fighting. However, several years before the end of the treaty terms and once he felt he had sufficient strength to defeat the Meccans, he launched a surprise attack on Mecca and took the city. We see hudnas being employed today in the many "peace agreements" that the Palestinians and other Muslims will make with Israel, but will then break with impunity once they think they have some sort of upper hand. They make these agreements knowing full well that they do not intend to honor the treaty stipulations. And, again, this is fully justified from the Muslim traditions,

"And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans...." (Surah 9:3)

Treaties made with unbelievers can be dissolved when the time comes to dissolve them. This is why the Palestinians constantly declare cease fires with the Israelis, but once they replenish their stocks of rockets and mortars, they start firing at the Jews again without warning. They never intended to honor the cease fires any longer than it took for the next load of explosives to be smuggled in from Egypt.

All of this talk of war and broken treaties leads to my next point, which is to address the claim that "Islam is a peaceful religion" and that violent Muslims "only make up a small minority." As we saw with their definition of peace" above, when Muslims talk about Islam being a peaceful religion, they mean that it is a religion with a tendency to try to force other religions and ways of life to submit to Islam — though that's not what they want you to think. Islam does, indeed, have a long history of bloody conquest under the banner of jihad. Indeed, most of the people groups across the world who are Muslim did not get that way by peaceful persuasion. The Syrians? Conquered by Muslim Arabs. The Egyptians? Conquered by Muslim Arabs. The Berbers of North Africa? You guessed it — conquered by Muslim Arabs. The Indians who now make up what is today Pakistan? The Persians? The Greeks in Asia Minor? The Bosnians? The Azerbaijanis? Yep, you guessed it.

What's more, this violence to spread Islam is the rule, not the exception. The Qur'an and the ahadith contain numerous injunctions urging Muslims to fight against unbelievers. The sirat (biographies of Mohammed written by early Muslims) contain numerous examples of offensive violence on the part of Mohammed — who is viewed by Muslims as the supreme example to be emulated. For any Muslim to deny that their religious writings are full of commands to offensive jihad is simply and outrageously dishonest. Indeed, though most faithful, traditionalist Muslims may not themselves be violent, they nevertheless do support the principles of establishing Islam by the sword, and often support the more radical elements who are perpetrating violence.

Muslims will try to rebut this bloody history by using the tu quoque fallacy, that is, they will try to distract away from the violence of their own religion by trying to point to somebody else's. "What about the Crusades?" they might say. Well, what about the Crusades? Those were largely defensive wars designed to stop the Muslim threat to Europe and to take back lands that had formerly been part of Christendom, but had been forcibly taken for Islam. Further, the Crusades were as much a secular as they were a religious enterprise. Trying to use the Crusades as a counterbalance to fourteen centuries of spreading Islam offensively by the sword is ridiculous.

Further, while the Qur'an and the ahadith explicitly command faithful Muslims to wage "holy" war, the same cannot be said for the Bible. To the extent that there was religious impetus behind the Crusades, that was in spite of, rather than because of, the teaching of New Testament Christianity. Nowhere in the life and times of Jesus Christ do we see any example set by which faithful Christians would be provoked to commit acts of violence against others for the sake of spreading their religion. Indeed, the New Testament says exactly the opposite,

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds...)" (II Corinthians 10:3-4)

To the extent that a Christian has a warfare for the sake of his religion, it is a spiritual warfare. Anything else cannot rightly be called "Christian."

This leads to another one of those counterintuitive falsehoods that Muslims will tell us — that jihad only refers to defensive warfare, not offensive. The only time Muslims would ever engage in jihad, we are told, is if they are attacked first.

There are several problems with this argument. First, it is simply refuted by Islam's own history. For thirteen centuries, Muslims routinely appealed to jihad for the advancement of Islam, to bring more and more parts of the world into the deen (way of life) of Islam. Historically, Muslims themselves have always understood that jihad means offensive warfare. In fact, they were completely cool with this. The initial Arab expansion was labeled a jihad. The Turks justified their incursions into Europe on the basis of jihad. It wasn't until the latter half of the 20th century, when it became fashionable to portray the Muslim world as third-world victims of horrible (Christian) European imperialism, that Muslim apologists started arguing that jihad was only waged in self-defense. Before that, jihad was something Muslims were proud to rely upon to prove to the infidels that Islam was superior, by forcibly subjugating the infidels to the Islamic way of life.

Oh, and never let anyone tell you that jihad only refers to some sort of peaceful, inner struggle against temptation and sin. That is completely unmitigated nonsense that has no historical, factual basis whatsoever.

Another problem with the Muslim taqiyya about jihad is the definition of "are attacked first." In the eyes of faithful Muslims, any slight against Islam is an "attack." Supporting Israel is an "attack." Allowing cartoonists to draw naughty pictures of Mohammed is an "attack." The French legislature banning the burqah is an attack." It doesn't matter if these "attacks" take place entirely within one of our own countries — it's still an attack upon Islam. Radical Muslims have already, and will continue to, use these as pretexts for waging holy war against the West. Their "defensive" war ends up being pretty offensive, when you get right down to it.

The third problem with the "defensive war" argument lies in Islam's peculiar view of world history. In the Islamic system, once a piece of territory comes under Muslim control, by all rights it has to stay under Muslim control. Any removal of land or populations from the control of Islam, then, becomes a pretext for perpetual warfare to regain it to whatever extent Muslims are able to wage it — even if the territory and populations were liberating themselves from Muslim imperialism. This is much (but not all) of the reason why Muslims hate Israel — "Palestine" was ruled by Islam for over thirteen centuries, so even though it is the Jews' own homeland, they no longer have any right to it, in the Islamic worldview. The same goes for any other place where Islam once ruled, but no longer does. Take, for instance, Spain. The Spanish waged a centuries-long struggle to liberate their own country from Islamic domination. The Muslims, in turn, view the Spanish as having committed a grave affront to Allah. This explains, for example, the statements about reclaiming "Al-Andalus" (Spain) for Islam in some of Osama bin-Laden's videotaped ramblings. What bin-Laden was saying is that Islam needs to reconquer Spain.

As an aside, this ought to cause us to stop and think about some of the odd, weird claims about history that Muslims will often make. For instance, they claim that Offa, an early Anglo- Saxon king, converted to Islam (without, of course, any historical evidence at all). Likewise, a common Muslim claim is that Muslims discovered the New World before Europeans, and even that the name "California" comes from "Al- Kalifiyyah" (the Caliphate), supposedly showing that Muslims had colonized it first. As laughable as these claims are, what they really amount to is an attempt to give Islam a pretext for waging this "defensive" jihad against the United Kingdom and the United States, since our two countries supposedly were "once Muslim" and need to be "returned" to the Islamic caliphate. The purpose for these seemingly ridiculous-but-innocuous historical revisions is really to "prepare the ground" for further warfare.

While we're on the subject of how Muslims deal with non-Muslim peoples, let's talk about something called dhimmitude. It is not uncommon for Muslim apologists in the West to declare that, along with its astounding peacefulness and love for soft, cuddly teddy bears, Islam is also a tolerant system, one in which Muslims and non-Muslims live together in peace and harmony. Conversions to Islam, they say, are voluntary and made by those who realized the truth and logic of Islam.

Well, no. Historically, when Islam has conquered a country, one of two sets of circumstances usually attained. If the country was not one populated by "people of the Book" (i.e. Christians, Jews, or Zoroastrians), then the population usually suffered an initial frenzy of rapine, pillage, and bloodletting, followed by the imposition of Islam onto whoever was left (for instance, this makes up a good deal of Indian history from the 8th to the 19th centuries). If the country was populated by "People of the Book," then the inhabitants were given the "three choices" — death, dhimmitude, or conversion.

Dhimmitude is, essentially, the reduction of a native population who didn't want to die, but yet who also didn't want to convert to Islam, to a place of third-class citizenship within their own country. The origin of this institution lay in the dhimma, a "treaty" which victorious Muslims would force onto conquered populations in which the Muslims agreed to "protect" the infidels in return for their (involuntary) support of the Islamic state and their humility before Muslims. Think of it, in a sense, as a giant, worldwide protection racket.

Dhimmis, as the infidels are then known, could continue to practice their religion, but they could not in any way let it be publicly seen. They were not allowed to rebuild or repair churches or synagogues which fell into disrepair. They were not allowed to ring bells or issue calls to prayer. They certainly were not allowed to evangelize or to dispute about religion with Muslims. No dhimmi church or synagogue could stand taller than the local Muslim mosque — if they did, the steeples would be knocked down. Dhimmis also had to pay a special, prohibitive tax called the jizyah, which was levied only upon conquered populations.

On a personal level, no dhimmi could hold any sort of public office, could not testify in court against a Muslim, could not pursue any legal action against Muslims, or even seek redress should they be cheated or stolen from by a Muslim. They could not ride upon a horse, and had to dismount from a donkey if in the presence of a Muslim (these were signs of humiliation and the superiority of the Muslim). In many districts, dhimmis had to wear special clothing that clearly marked them out for ridicule and separation.

All in all, the purpose of these disabilities was to "encourage" the dhimmis to convert to Islam. Either way, dhimmis supported the Islamic state, either through their taxes, or by becoming Muslim and lending their manpower to it. However, the prime purpose was to force the conquered populations to adopt Islam. This is shown historically. In the very early Islamic state after Muslims had conquered much of the Middle East and North Africa, these dhimma stipulations had not yet been implemented, and consequently Muslims remained a small minority among a sea of conquered peoples. Around the middle of the 8th century, however, a series of hardline caliphs came to power who began to lay greater and greater hardships on these populations. It is only then that we find in the archaeological and historical records that significant numbers of people began to convert to Islam. Clearly, the penalties were what did the converting, not the logical sense and reason of the Islamic religious system.

Another thing that often happened in dhimmi lands was the destruction and/or conversion of their major buildings, religious or secular, into symbols of Islamic superiority. For instance, when the Turks conquered Constantinople, they turned the Hagia Sofia into a mosque — specifically to show the superiority of Islam over Christianity. In the same way, they converted the Church of St. John in Damascus into the Great Mosque of the Umayyads. The Temple Mount in Jerusalem was coopted, and the Dome of the Rock was built, taking Judaism's holiest site, and converting it into an Islamic centerpiece.

And that, folks, is what the Ground Zero Mosque is really all about. The World Trade Center had long been the object of Muslim hatred, since it represented in their eyes the power and capacity of Western commercialism and capitalism (both of which are inimical to traditional Islam). Islam felt that it won a great victory the day Muslim terrorists brought the towers down on September 11, 2001. By building a mosque at the site of the towers' destruction, this is a way of proclaiming the superiority of Islam over America and the American way of life. What once was the center of American capitalist power will soon have a Muslim mosque on it, if Rauf gets his way — and that will send a message to the entire Muslim world that America is a dhimmi land.

There are many, many more things I could discuss in this essay — I've only really touched on some of the major points in which Muslims will try to persuade people that what they see before their own eyes is not really true. I could discuss any number of other areas — Muslim anti-Semitism, the treatment of women, the false claims about Islam being "the fastest growing religion in the world," the eclectic and manmade origins of the Qur'an, even such surprising topics as the likelihood that Mohammed as a historical person probably didn't really exist, or that Allah is not the same as the God of the Bible, but is instead a monotheistic form of the ancient Middle Eastern moon and fertility god Hubal. Again, please check out my book online to see discussion of these and a whole lot more.

The take home message is this — don't let yourself be sidetracked by the propaganda. History tells us something far different from what the apologists tell us who are trying to convince us that a Ground Zero mosque is a great yet innocuous thing, or that Muslims only hate Israel because the "Palestinian homeland" was ruthlessly stolen by rapacious, imperialistic Zionists. Once we begin to see how the Muslims actually think about things, we can understand why they do many of the things they do, and be forewarned about what their next moves may be. Make no mistake — there IS a clash of civilizations going on. It is one which Islam has initiated, but which we must be prepared to face and fight if we are to maintain our culture, civilization, and way of life.

The problems with the koran burning and the WTC Mosque

In all this argument of recent days, the most important fact of the matter has been obvious from the start, but is rarely spoken of by the media or the public.

Regarding the Florida koran burning, has anyone stepped back and listened to what people are saying in detail? The first thing a person will hear is how that Pastor has the Constitutional right to do what he is doing.

The next series of statements, however, are always the majority of statements made in these conversations, namely: It is the wrong thing to do, it is inciteful, it is a cult in Florida, muslims will hate us, it will endanger the troops, and, most importantly for this conversation: we are not at war against a religion, but extremists of that religion.

This is important because of the islamic world’s reaction to this Florida Pastor; namely, that the islamic world immediately protested the planned koran burning by condemning the entire country of the United States and marched and chanted promoting our deaths to cries of “DEATH TO AMERICA!”

The response by virtually all American politicians has been an apologetic tone, one where they immediately call for the koran burning to stop, observations that it IS inciteful and that the threats to Americans at home and American Troops abroad are not acceptable and that the safety of the American public are paramount in this case.

Their tone has been to cower in fear at these threats. Not one politician has stepped forward and exclaimed, “Islam is not being attacked by an entire country or an entire religion, Islam is only being attacked by a radical. Islam needs to remember we are not all against Islam and threats to our safety are wrong and inciteful and hate filled.”

Not one. They cower to the islamic world, refuse to hold them to the same standard of behavior as they insist from their own people, refuse to insist that the Pastor in Florida is an anomaly and that the United States is no threat to islam.

What they did was bow in submission to the sensitivities of the islamic world and deny the Florida Pastor his civil rights to speak out like an American.

The islamic world will not notice. They will riot anyways. It is identical to the cartoonists in Denmark. All it took was one cartoonist to make a cartoon of Muhammad and the entire islamic world was in the streets and threatening to kill anyone who makes a cartoon of Muhammad.

Theo Van Gogh made a movie about this islamic submission in Holland, and they killed him for making the movie.

The Florida Koran burning case is quite similar to the Ground Zero mosque case with some significant differences. In Florida, the Pastor must stop his koran burning or there will be violence across the globe, and in fact, even if he does stop, there will be violence across the globe due to him stating he wanted to burn korans. In New York City, the Imam who wants to build a mosque 2 blocks away from Ground Zero, he said on CNN that if we move the mosque or deny it’s construction, there will be violence across the globe.

In both cases, if we do not submit to islamic sensitivities, there will be violence across the globe, in fact, even if we do submit to islamic sensitivities, there will most likely be violence anyways due to the fact that we spoke of those things.

Free speech is threatened in Florida, and a new twist is happening in New York City, something that Israel has seen does not work, and that is LAND FOR PEACE.

The Ground Zero mosque is about LAND FOR PEACE. If we give islam the land to make a mosque, there will be peace. If we do not give islam the land, there will be violence.

Think this through people. In both of these cases, neither has anything to do with the original concerns people expressed. It is solely about whether we submit to islamic sensitivities or have violence.

It is about Islamic blackmail of the United States.

James Bancroft USMC 1977-1981

The hell they do.

The definition of RELIGION never meant ANY religion when the constitution was written

Our government was going to war in Utah to remove the Mormons polygamy in the late 1800’s, and they were right: an evil religion enforcing a sexual perversion was NOT a religion of good order and peace within a nation. In order to avoid war, Brigham Young suddenly had a new revalation from ‘god’ that told him that polygamy was no loner mandatory in the Mormon religion. Only THEN did Utah get statehood without violence.

ISLAM does NOT present a religion of good order within a nation under ANY definition.

Our Constitution perfectly allows the disallowance of Islam deserving any constitutional protection due to inherent violence and prejudice that is mandatory in the simple teachings of their own professed book.

A very lovely essay... short, sweet and truthful
For those interested, here are more vids on sharia

Sharia is scary business...check it out for yourself

On sharia global finance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7iHxl90CD0&feature=related

On sharia global Economy and huge financial fraud!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbb5s8hALVE&feature=related

http://thehayride.com/2010/08/louisiana-at-leading-edge-in-fight-against-shariah/#more-5392

Three things about Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w&feature=player_embedded

and a little Bill Whittle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg_iDPRud_c

Maybe we should talk about the birth of Pakistan?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IstZSgniH8

PS!!! I hate to think I am paying for Jihad with my VISA, Mastercard, HSBC, AIG, UBS products!

It is always about either blackmail or threat of such with Islamists. There will be NO appeasing those barbarians. The entire Western world could capitulate tomorrow and convert, but Moslems (look up the difference regarding Muslims/Moslems) will still find a reason to kill the Westeners, not to mention their own people.

They are simply the facists of the 21st century, although a little less aggressive when low in numbers - give them time and they will be cutting heads off in England. Thankfully, France is starting to see the error of their liberal immigration policies. Never thought I would look at France as a leader. Strange times.

Thanks for your insight, Marine. But I believe Islam to be much more than a cult. It is a geo-political theocracy that is bent on world domination. Cults just usually kill themselves off for some stupid reason or another. Or they just fade away like the communes of the 1960's, or people simply lose interest in their nonsense.

Islam is a totalitarian political system cloaked in a religion created by a barbaric murderous pedophile. All that follow him are the same. As the president of Egypt recently said, "There is no such thing as moderate Islam. There is only Islam".

USN: 1975-1986 Gator Aviation (your very own personal bellhop...har...and was proud to be so).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.